Comparing utility and warranty of services

ABSTRACT

An invention for comparing utility and warranty of services in an information (IT) stack is provided. Embodiments of this invention are directed to comparing utility and warranty of services in an information technology (IT) stack comprising a plurality of layers, at least one of the plurality of layers having a set of services. In these embodiments, a utility and warranty tool provides this capability. Specifically, the utility and warranty tool comprises a determination component configured to determine, at each layer of the IT stack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) value for each of the set of services, wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution for implementing a business process; and determine, at each layer of the IT stack, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for each of the set of services, wherein the AUW value is a measure of an ability of each of the set of services to satisfy the RUW at each layer of the IT stack. The utility and warranty tool further comprises a comparison component configured to compare the RUW value against the AUW value at each layer of the IT stack to determine whether each of the set of services satisfies the desired solution for implementing the business process.

RELATED U.S. APPLICATION DATA

The present patent document is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 12/610,999, filed Nov. 2, 2009, entitled “COMPARING UTILITY ANDWARRANTY OF SERVICES”, the entire contents of which is incorporatedherein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to business services, and morespecifically, to comparing utility and warranty of services for abusiness process.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Distributed environments such as clusters of computing systems, datacenters, and grid systems involve managing a large number of resourcesand service components. Typical end-service provided to the users ofsuch systems require composition of multiple resources and servicecomponents, which together deliver the end-service that is of interestto the users. Such composition of multiple components requires carefulconfiguration of the components and deployment of these components, suchthat they interface with each other in a compatible manner so that thecomposite service is deployed, initialized, handles the workloadsubmitted by users, handles component level faults, and provides robustservice while handling fluctuations in the workload.

In the past, IT solution architectures have attempted to deal withincreasing levels of software and hardware complexity. Many businessesuse business processes that comprise one or more services, typicallyimplemented by software that is deployed on hardware, which is housed ina datacenter. As the level of complexity continues to increase,traditional solution development techniques are reaching the limit oftheir ability to adequately design the IT Infrastructure that supportsthe multiplicity of business functions that rely on shared IT resources.Determining how well the IT infrastructure satisfies these IT servicerequirements becomes increasingly difficult, especially as resources areintegrated and shared within an IT implementation. Currently, there isno uniform way to compare implementations choices that accounts for thesharing of resources across the layers of the IT infrastructure.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one embodiment, there is a method for comparing utility and warrantyof services in an information technology (IT) stack comprising aplurality of layers, at least one of the layers having a set ofservices. In this embodiment, the method comprises: determining, at eachlayer of the IT stack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) value foreach of the set of services, wherein the RUW value represents a desiredsolution for implementing a business process; determining, at each layerof the IT stack, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for eachof the set of services, wherein the AUW value is a measure of an abilityof each of the set of services to satisfy the RUW at each layer of theIT stack; and comparing the RUW value against the AUW value at eachlayer of the IT stack to determine whether each of the set of servicessatisfies the desired solution for implementing the business process.

In a second embodiment, there is a system for comparing utility andwarranty of services in an information technology (IT) stack comprisinga plurality of layers, at least one of the plurality of layers having aset of services. In this embodiment, the system comprises at least oneprocessing unit, and memory operably associated with the at least oneprocessing unit. A utility and warranty tool is storable in memory andexecutable by the at least one processing unit. The utility and warrantytool comprises: a determination component configured to determine, ateach layer of the IT stack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) valuefor each of the set of services, wherein the RUW value represents adesired solution for implementing a business process; and determine, ateach layer of the IT stack, an available utility and warranty (AUW)value for each of the set of services, wherein the AUW value is ameasure of an ability of each of the set of services to satisfy the RUWat each layer of the IT stack. The utility and warranty furthercomprises a comparison component configured to compare the RUW valueagainst the AUW value at each layer of the IT stack to determine whethereach of the set of services satisfies the desired solution forimplementing the business process.

In a third embodiment, there is a computer-readable medium storingcomputer instructions, which when executed, enables a computer system tocompare utility and warranty of services in an information technology(IT) stack comprising a plurality of layers, at least one of theplurality of layers having a set of services, the computer instructionscomprising: determining, at each layer of the IT stack, a requiredutility and warranty (RUW) value for each of the set of services,wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution for implementing abusiness process; determining, at each layer of the IT stack, anavailable utility and warranty (AUW) value for each of the set ofservices, wherein the AUW value is a measure of an ability of each ofthe set of services to satisfy the RUW at each layer of the IT stack;and comparing the RUW value against the AUW value at each layer of theIT stack to determine whether each of the set of services satisfies thedesired solution for implementing the business process.

In a fourth embodiment, there is a method for comparing utility andwarranty of services in an information technology (IT) stack comprisinga plurality of layers, at least one of the plurality of layers having aset of services. In this embodiment, a computer infrastructure isprovided and is operable to: determine, at each layer of the IT stack, arequired utility and warranty (RUW) value for each of the set ofservices, wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution forimplementing a business process; determine, at each layer of the ITstack, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for each of the setof services, wherein the AUW value is a measure of an ability of each ofthe set of services to satisfy the RUW at each layer of the IT stack;and compare the RUW value against the AUW value at each layer of the ITstack to determine whether each of the set of services satisfies thedesired solution for implementing the business process.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a schematic of an exemplary computing environment in whichelements of the present invention may operate;

FIG. 2 shows an IT stack according to embodiments of the invention;

FIG. 3 shows a utility and warranty tool that operates in theenvironment shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 4 shows an approach for comparing utility and warranty of servicesof an IT stack according to embodiments of the invention; and

FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram of a method for comparing utility andwarranty of services of an IT stack according to embodiments of theinvention.

The drawings are not necessarily to scale. The drawings are merelyschematic representations, not intended to portray specific parametersof the invention. The drawings are intended to depict only typicalembodiments of the invention, and therefore should not be considered aslimiting the scope of the invention. In the drawings, like numberingrepresents like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Embodiments of this invention are directed to comparing utility andwarranty of services in an information technology (IT) stack comprisinga plurality of layers, at least one of the plurality of layers having aset (i.e., one or more) of services. In these embodiments, a utility andwarranty tool provides this capability. Specifically, the utility andwarranty tool comprises a determination component configured todetermine, at each layer of the IT stack, a required utility andwarranty (RUW) value for each of the set of services, wherein the RUWvalue represents a desired solution for implementing a business process;and determine, at each layer of the IT stack, an available utility andwarranty (AUW) value for each of the set of services, wherein the AUWvalue is a measure of an ability of each of the set of services tosatisfy the RUW at each layer of the IT stack. The utility and warrantytool further comprises a comparison component configured to compare theRUW value against the AUW value at each layer of the IT stack todetermine whether each of the set of services satisfies the desiredsolution for implementing the business process.

FIG. 1 illustrates a computerized implementation 100 of the presentinvention. As depicted, implementation 100 includes computer system 104deployed within a computer infrastructure 102. This is intended todemonstrate, among other things, that the present invention could beimplemented within a network environment (e.g., the Internet, a widearea network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a virtual privatenetwork (VPN), etc.), or on a stand-alone computer system. In the caseof the former, communication throughout the network can occur via anycombination of various types of communications links. For example, thecommunication links can comprise addressable connections that mayutilize any combination of wired and/or wireless transmission methods.Where communications occur via the Internet, connectivity could beprovided by conventional TCP/IP sockets-based protocol, and an Internetservice provider could be used to establish connectivity to theInternet. Still yet, computer infrastructure 102 is intended todemonstrate that some or all of the components of implementation 100could be deployed, managed, serviced, etc., by a service provider whooffers to implement, deploy, and/or perform the process of the presentinvention for others.

Computer system 104 is intended to represent any type of computer systemthat may be implemented in deploying/realizing the teachings recitedherein. In this particular example, computer system 104 represents anillustrative system for generating a coding scheme for comparing utilityand warranty of services in an information technology (IT) stack 145. Itshould be understood that any other computers implemented under thepresent invention may have different components/software, but willperform similar processes. As further shown, computer system 104includes a processing unit 106 capable of analyzing and comparing datarepresenting the RUW and AUW, as will be further described below. Alsoshown is memory 108 for storing a utility and warranty tool 153, a bus110, and device interfaces 112.

Processing unit 106 collects and routes signals representing datacollected from IT stack 145 and utility and warranty tool 153. Thesignals can be transmitted over a LAN and/or a WAN (e.g., T1, T3, 56 kb,X.25), broadband connections (ISDN, Frame Relay, ATM), wireless links(802.11, Bluetooth, etc.), and so on. In some embodiments, the data maybe encrypted using, for example, trusted key-pair encryption. Differentsystems may transmit information using different communication pathways,such as Ethernet or wireless networks, direct serial or parallelconnections, USB, Firewire®, Bluetooth®, or other proprietaryinterfaces. (Firewire is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.Bluetooth is a registered trademark of Bluetooth Special Interest Group(SIG)).

In general, processing unit 106 executes computer program code, such asprogram code for operating utility and warranty tool 153, which isstored in memory 108 and/or storage system 116. While executing computerprogram code, processing unit 106 can read and/or write data to/frommemory 108 and storage system 116. It will be appreciated that storagesystem 116 can include VCRs, DVRs, RAID arrays, USB hard drives, opticaldisk recorders, flash storage devices, general purpose computers, and/orother data processing and storage elements for storing and/or processingdata.

FIGS. 2-3 show a more detailed view of utility and warranty tool 153according to embodiments of the invention. Utility and warranty tool 153operates with IT stack 145, which comprises a plurality of layers 143representing requirements of a business process 170. As shown in FIG. 2,IT stack 145 comprises a set of end users 122 performing one or morebusiness functions 124 (i.e., purchase order processing, invoicereconciliation, scheduling and dispatching service personnel,determining truck delivery routes, managing warehouse inventory, etc.).Execution of business functions 124 depends on each layer of IT stack145, including set of services 126, a set of software components 128, aset of hardware components 130 operating with a data center 132, andpower/network utilities 134. From the perspective of an end user 122,utility (i.e., a desired mapping solution between the components of anIT stack for implementing a business process) is driven top-down, asutility is most influential in the business function 124 layer and setof services 126 layer. The mapping of desired solution requirementsfocuses more on choosing a combination of software capabilities. Asshown, warranty (i.e., how well a service satisfies the desiredsolution) is driven from the bottom up and more influenced by the set ofhardware components 130 layer and the data center 132 layer. In thisembodiment, the deployment patterns of various software combinationsfocuses on warranty.

As shown in FIGS. 2-3, utility and warranty tool 153 comprises adetermination component 155 (FIG. 3) configured to determine, at eachlayer 143 of IT stack 145, a required utility and warranty (RUW) valuefor each of a set of services 122, wherein the RUW value represents adesired solution for implementing business process 170. Determinationcomponent 155 is further configured to determine, at each layer 143 ofIT stack 145, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for each ofset of services 122, wherein the AUW value is a measure of an ability ofeach of set of services 122 to satisfy the RUW at each layer 143 of ITstack 145. Specifically, determination component 155 calculates the RUWvalue at each layer 143 of IT stack 145 starting with an end user 122layer of IT stack 145 and moving towards a data center 132 layer of ITstack 145. Determination component 155 also calculates the AUW value ateach layer of IT stack 145 starting with data center 132 layer of ITstack 145 and moving towards end user 122 layer of IT stack 145. In thisway, the RUW values are calculated moving “downward,” while the AUWvalues are calculated moving “upward.”

The AUW and the RUW calculations account for the influences of sharingamong various components of IT stack 145, as resource sharing createsmultiple paths between components. Resource sharing results in acollection of possible RUW and AUW for comparison at that component, theselection of which is driven by area/components to maximize or minimizeacross the IT stack 145. For example, to maximize the potential for eachcomponent in IT Stack 145 to at least satisfy the RUW when a componentis shared, the most demanding RUWs is propagated downward, while thebest AUW is propagated upward. However, this selection process can alsotake into account global requirements outside of the requirements drivenfrom the interconnection of the components (i.e., floor space in thedatacenter, power in the datacenter, skills of the datacenteroperations, security boundaries in the datacenter, etc.).

In one embodiment, the RUW value and the AUW value are calculated usinga mathematical model. Specifically, determination component 155 isconfigured to calculate both the RUW and the AUW values using any numberof mathematical models including, but not limited to: dynamical systems,statistical systems, differential equations, etc. Or, in anotherembodiment, determination component is configured to calculate the RUWvalue and the AUW value using actual observed values. In this approach,the behavior of a given node in IT stack 145 is compared over time tosome known condition (i.e., a controlled laboratory benchmark test), oragainst current conditions (i.e., monitoring a production datacenter) toprovide the RUW or AUW values for a given component of IT stack 145. Thedetermination component 155 is capable of handling a mixture ofcomponent types, where the type is the mechanism by which the RUW and/orAUW value is derived.

Next, a comparison is made between the RUW and AUW values calculated foreach of plurality of layers 143. Specifically, utility and warranty tool153 comprises a comparison component 160 configured to compare the RUWvalue against the AUW value at each layer 143 of IT stack 145 todetermine whether each of set of services 126 satisfies the desiredsolution for implementing business process 170. That is, at each layerof IT stack 145, the RUW is compared against the AUW to provide ameasure of how well, at each point in business process 170, the desiredsolution satisfies the RUW. A positive comparison (i.e., AUW value isgreater than RUW value) indicates that the desired solution has excessavailable utility or warranty, while a negative comparison indicatesthat the desired solution is not meeting all requirements, and thatanother solution may be needed.

Referring now to FIG. 4, an approach for comparing utility and warrantyof services in IT stack 145 will be described in further detail. Asmentioned above, determination component 155 (FIG. 3) calculates the RUWvalue at each layer of IT stack 145 starting with an end user 122 layerof IT stack 145 and moving towards data center 132 layer of IT stack145. A “downward view” of FIG. 4 shows that Business Function 1 is madeup of services 1, 2, and 3, while Business Function 2 is made up ofservices 4, 5 and 6. In this example, Service 3 is made up of Software 3and Software 4, while Service 4 is made up of Software 3 and Software 6.Further, Service 3 and Service 4 run on Hardware 3. An “upward view”shows that Hardware 3 hosts Software 3, Software 3, and Software 4.Therefore, Hardware 3 must satisfy the most constraining RUW ofSoftwares 1, 2, 3, and 4. As shown, Software 3 is used by Service 1,Service 2, Service 3, and Service 4. For the case where the objective isto meet the RUW without any other external constraints, Software 3 mustthen satisfy the most constraining RUW of Services 1, 2, and 3.Furthermore, Software 4 is used by Service 3 and Service 6 and mustsatisfy the most constraining RUW of services 3 and 6. Accordingly,Service 3 is used by Business Function 1 and must satisfy the RUW ofBusiness Function 1.

RUW and AUW calculations according to the present invention are based onmany factors throughout the business process, as well as factorsexternal to the business process (i.e., floor space, network bandwidth,software change control processes, datacenter maintenance policies,etc). In the example in FIG. 4, one such focus could be on theconstraint of component availability. Here, Business Function 1 must beavailable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the entire year (i.e.,“24×7×365”), for example, while Business Function 2 must be available 8hours a day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks (i.e., “8×5×52”). Therefore, atthe services layer, Service 3 must be available 24×7×365 and Service 4must be available 8×5×52. Moving down to the software layer, it isappreciated that Software 3 and Software 4 must also be available24×7×365, as they both support Service 3. Accordingly, Hardware 3, datacenter 132, and any incoming utilities 143 must be able to providesupport 24×7×365 as well. As shown, Software 2, requiring 24×6×52availability, can be hosted on Hardware 3, which has 24×7×365availability. The present invention examines other external factors aswell. In this example, comparison component 160 examines therequirements of the change control process for Software 2 vs. Software 3and Software 4. Softwares 3 and 4, designed for 24×7×365 availability,do not require the hosting hardware to be powered off/on for any change.Software 2, designed for 24×6×52, requires the hosting hardware to bepowered off/on. As such, the solution is identified as not meetingrequirements. In this example, Software 2 can provide 24×6×52availability without the on/off requirement, but has not been utilized.Therefore, Hardware 3 is only available 24×6×52, which is less than therequired 24×7×365. As mentioned above, Software 4 and Software 5 canprovide 24×7×365 availability and thus identifies two potential placesto correct the utility and warranty mismatch. The comparison hasdetermined that the desired solution for implementing the businessprocess will not be satisfied. One possibility to correct this would beto upgrade Software 2, which will require upgrading Service 1 andService 2. Alternatively, a second instance of Hardware 3, can bedeployed, one hosting Software 2, the other hosting Softwares 3 and 4.

It can be appreciated that the methodologies disclosed herein can beused within a computer system to compare utility and warranty ofservices, as shown in FIG. 1. In this case, utility and warranty tool153 can be provided, and one or more systems for performing theprocesses described in the invention can be obtained and deployed tocomputer infrastructure 102. To this extent, the deployment can compriseone or more of (1) installing program code on a computing device, suchas a computer system, from a computer-readable medium; (2) adding one ormore computing devices to the infrastructure; and (3) incorporatingand/or modifying one or more existing systems of the infrastructure toenable the infrastructure to perform the process actions of theinvention.

The exemplary computer system 104 may be described in the generalcontext of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules,being executed by a computer. Generally, program modules includeroutines, programs, people, components, logic, data structures, and soon that perform particular tasks or implements particular abstract datatypes. Exemplary computer system 104 may be practiced in distributedcomputing environments where tasks are performed by remote processingdevices that are linked through a communications network. In adistributed computing environment, program modules may be located inboth local and remote computer storage media including memory storagedevices.

The program modules carry out the methodologies disclosed herein, asshown in FIG. 5. According to one embodiment, at S1, the RUW value isdetermined at each layer of the IT stack for each of the set ofservices, wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution forimplementing a business process. At S2, the AUW value is determined ateach layer of the IT stack for each of the set of services, wherein theAUW value is a measure of an ability of each of the set of services tosatisfy the RUW at each layer of the IT stack. At S3, the RUW value iscompared against the AUW value at each layer of the IT stack todetermine whether each of the set of services satisfies the desiredsolution for implementing the business process. As such, this methodmakes it possible to compare alternate desired solutions against eachother in a standardized manner.

The flowchart of FIG. 5 illustrates the architecture and operation ofpossible implementations of systems, methods and computer programproducts according to various embodiments of the present invention. Inthis regard, each block in the flowchart may represent a module,segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executableinstructions for implementing the specified logical process(s). Itshould also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, theprocess noted in the blocks may occur out of the order noted in thefigures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, beexecuted substantially concurrently. It will also be noted that eachblock of flowchart illustration can be implemented by special purposehardware-based systems that perform the specified process or acts, orcombinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

Furthermore, an implementation of exemplary computer system 104 (FIG. 1)may be stored on or transmitted across some form of computer readablemedia. Computer readable media can be any available media that can beaccessed by a computer. By way of example, and not limitation, computerreadable media may comprise “computer storage media” and “communicationsmedia.”

“Computer storage media” include volatile and non-volatile, removableand non-removable media implemented in any method or technology forstorage of information such as computer readable instructions, datastructures, program modules, or other data. Computer storage mediaincludes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or othermemory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or otheroptical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic diskstorage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which canbe used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by acomputer.

“Communication media” typically embodies computer readable instructions,data structures, program modules, or other data in a modulated datasignal, such as carrier wave or other transport mechanism. Communicationmedia also includes any information delivery media.

The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more ofits characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encodeinformation in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation,communication media includes wired media such as a wired network ordirect-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF,infrared, and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above arealso included within the scope of computer readable media.

It is apparent that there has been provided with this invention anapproach for comparing utility and warranty of services in aninformation (IT) stack comprising a plurality of layers, at least one ofthe plurality of layers having a set of services. While the inventionhas been particularly shown and described in conjunction with apreferred embodiment thereof, it will be appreciated that variations andmodifications will occur to those skilled in the art. Therefore, it isto be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all suchmodifications and changes that fall within the true spirit of theinvention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer implemented method for comparingutility and warranty of services in an information technology (IT)stack, the computer implemented method comprising: calculating, at eachlayer of the IT stack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) value foreach of a set of services, by starting with an end user layer at a tophierarchical layer of the IT stack and continuing towards a data centerlayer of the IT stack, wherein the RUW value is determined fromcomponent availability, wherein the RUW value represents a desiredsolution for implementing a business process; calculating, at each layerof the IT stack, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for eachof the set of services by starting with the data center layer of the ITstack and continuing towards the end user layer of the IT stack, whereinthe AUW value is determined from component availability, wherein the AUWvalue is a measure of an ability of each of the set of services tosatisfy the RUW value at each layer of the IT stack; and comparing theRUW value against the AUW value at each layer of the IT stack todetermine whether each of the set of services satisfies the desiredsolution for implementing the business process.
 2. The method of claim1, wherein the calculation of the RUW value is based on a mathematicalmodel.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the calculation of the AUWvalue is based on a mathematic model.
 4. The method of claim 2, whereinthe mathematical model is one of dynamical systems, statistical systems,or differential equations.
 5. The method of claim 3, wherein themathematical model is one of dynamical systems, statistical systems, ordifferential equations.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein thecalculation of the RUW value and the calculation of the AUW value areeach based on actual observed values.
 7. The method of claim 1, whereinthe calculation of the RUW value and the calculation of the AUW valueare each based on at least one of floor space, network bandwidth,software change control processes, or datacenter maintenance policies.8. A system for comparing utility and warranty of services in aninformation technology (IT) stack comprising a plurality of layers, atleast one of the plurality of layers having a set of services, thesystem comprising: at least one processing unit; memory operablyassociated with the at least one processing unit; and a utility andwarranty tool storable in memory and executable by the at least oneprocessing unit, the utility and warranty tool comprising: adetermination component configured to: calculate, at each layer of theIT stack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) value for each of a setof services, by starting with an end user layer at a top hierarchicallayer of the IT stack and continuing towards a data center layer of theIT stack, wherein the RUW value is determined from componentavailability, wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution forimplementing a business process; calculate, at each layer of the ITstack, an available utility and warranty (AUW) value for each of the setof services by starting with the data center layer of the IT stack andcontinuing towards the end user layer of the IT stack, wherein the AUWvalue is determined from component availability, wherein the AUW valueis a measure of an ability of each of the set of services to satisfy theRUW value at each layer of the IT stack; a comparison componentconfigured to compare the RUW value against the AUW value at each layerof the IT stack to determine whether each of the set of servicessatisfies the desired solution for implementing the business process. 9.The utility and warranty tool according to claim 8, wherein thecalculation of the RUW value is based on a mathematical model.
 10. Theutility and warranty tool according to claim 8, wherein the calculationof the AUW value is based on a mathematical model.
 11. The utility andwarranty tool according to claim 9, wherein the mathematical model isone of dynamical systems, statistical systems, or differentialequations.
 12. The utility and warranty tool according to claim 10,wherein the mathematical model is one of dynamical systems, statisticalsystems, or differential equations.
 13. The utility and warranty toolaccording to claim 6, wherein the calculation of the RUW value and thecalculation of the AUW value are each based on actual observed values.14. The utility and warranty tool according to claim 6, wherein thecalculation of the RUW value and the calculation of the AUW are eachbased on at least one of floor space, network bandwidth, software changecontrol processes, or datacenter maintenance policies.
 15. Acomputer-readable medium storing computer instructions, which whenexecuted, enables a computer system to compare utility and warranty ofservices in an information technology (IT) stack comprising a pluralityof layers, at least one of the layers having a set of services, thecomputer instructions comprising: calculate, at each layer of the ITstack, a required utility and warranty (RUW) value for each of a set ofservices, by starting with an end user layer at a top hierarchical layerof the IT stack and continuing towards a data center layer of the ITstack, wherein the RUW value is determined from component availability,wherein the RUW value represents a desired solution for implementing abusiness process; calculate, at each layer of the IT stack, an availableutility and warranty (AUW) value for each of the set of services bystarting with the data center layer of the IT stack and continuingtowards the end user layer of the IT stack, wherein the AUW value isdetermined from component availability, wherein the AUW value is ameasure of an ability of each of the set of services to satisfy the RUWvalue at each layer of the IT stack; and compare the RUW value againstthe AUW value at each layer of the IT stack to determine whether each ofthe set of services satisfies the desired solution for implementing thebusiness process.
 16. The computer-readable medium according to claim15, wherein the calculation of the RUW value is based on a mathematicalmodel.
 17. The computer-readable medium according to claim 15, whereinthe calculation of the AUW value is based on a mathematical model. 18.The computer-readable medium according to claim 16, wherein themathematical model is one of dynamical systems, statistical systems, ordifferential equations.
 19. The computer-readable medium according toclaim 15, wherein the calculation of the RUW value and the calculationof the AUW value are each based on actual observed values.
 20. Thecomputer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein the calculationof the RUW value and the calculation of the AUW value are each based onat least one of floor space, network bandwidth, software change controlprocesses, or datacenter maintenance policies.